Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Claims of "non-violence"

Sar Shalom

BDS-holes invariably sell their agenda as being a "non-violent" attempt to persuade Israel to uphold "international law." While it is true that implementing boycotts is not a violent act, that does not mean that doing so is peaceful. There is an act in federal law that makes this point. The current issue of Foreign Affairs, has a group of essays about the role of nuclear weapons, one of which deals with the potential for nuclear conflict with China. One potential flashpoint in Taiwan, for which American policy is governed by the Taiwan Relations Act which states in part:
[The United States will] consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific are and of grave concern to the United States.
This does not provide anything about the validity, or lack thereof, of why "justice" requires boycotting Israel. However, it does firmly place boycotts in the category of "other than peaceful means" and "threat to peace and security."

13 comments:

  1. For news articles that refute the false
    “non-violence” claims of Israel’s enemies,
    read these two web sites often:

    www.jns.org

    www.algemeiner.com

    ==========
    “Al Qaeda seeks to destroy the Jewish state completely.

    Much of its rhetoric and some of its attacks suggest that it sees international Jewry and Israel as interchangeable.

    The group’s rhetoric is also viciously anti-Semitic in addition to being anti-Israel.”

    SOURCE: Al Qaeda, the Islamic State,
    and the Global Jihadist Movement: What Everyone
    Needs to Know
    (chapter 3, page 47) by Daniel Byman,
    Oxford University Press, year 2015, ISBN: 019021726X (paperback) ISBN: 9780190217266 (paperback)
    ISBN: 0190217251 ISBN: 9780190217259

    PERSONAL COMMENT:
    This quote is only about Al Qaeda, but should
    we believe that other radical Islamic terrorist
    organizations would behave much differently?

    ==========
    “Killing civilians, particularly Jews and Americans,
    is deemed acceptable [by Al Qaeda] when other targets
    are too difficult to attack.”

    SOURCE: Al Qaeda, the Islamic State,
    and the Global Jihadist Movement: What Everyone
    Needs to Know
    (chapter 3, page 49)
    by Daniel Byman, Oxford University Press, year 2015,
    ISBN: 019021726X (paperback) ISBN: 9780190217266
    (paperback) ISBN: 0190217251 ISBN: 9780190217259

    PERSONAL COMMENT:
    This quote is only about Al Qaeda, but should
    we believe that other radical Islamic terrorist
    organizations would behave much differently?

    ==========
    “...roughly half of Palestinians say it [suicide
    bombing] is at least sometimes justified...”

    SOURCE: Al Qaeda, the Islamic State,
    and the Global Jihadist Movement: What Everyone
    Needs to Know
    (chapter 3, page 56)
    by Daniel Byman, Oxford University Press, year 2015,
    ISBN: 019021726X (paperback) ISBN: 9780190217266
    (paperback) ISBN: 0190217251 ISBN: 9780190217259

    ==========

    Harvard Law Professor Alan M. Dershowitz said:

    “We [Jews] are not the Swiss and our history
    is not one of being left alone. It is one of
    constant victimization and repression.

    Without power – indeed, without power disproportional
    to our numbers – we continue to be victimized.
    We should strive to enhance our power on every front.”

    SOURCE: Chutzpah by Alan M. Dershowitz
    (chapter 4, page 129) published in year 1991
    by Little Brown & Co ISBN: 9780316181372 ISBN: 0316181374

    ==========
    Harvard Law Professor Alan M. Dershowitz said:

    “…if Israel’s military power were ever to be diminished to the point that the combined armies of the Arab world could defeat it, I believe there would be another Holocaust.

    No Arab dictator who could defeat Israel and forebore from doing so would survive the continuing frenzy for jihad [Islamic holy war against non-Muslims].

    And an Arab military victory over Israel – unlike the Israeli victories over the Arabs – would not result in a mere occupation or even detention of Israeli Jews.

    It would result in a mass slaughter, designed to
    rid Arab holy land of Jewish intruders. Most Jews
    know this, though they rarely speak of it openly."


    SOURCE: Chutzpah by Alan M. Dershowitz
    (chapter epilogue, page 352) published in year 1991
    by Little Brown & Co ISBN: 9780316181372 ISBN: 0316181374

    ==========
    Harvard Law Professor Alan M. Dershowitz said:

    The most recent Hamas provocations — having 40,000 Gazans try to tear down the border fence and enter Israel with Molotov cocktails and other improvised weapons — are part of a repeated Hamas tactic that I have called the “dead baby strategy.”

    Hamas’ goal is to have Israel kill as many Gazans as possible so that the headlines always begin, and often end, with the body count.

    SOURCE: Why Does the Media Keep Encouraging
    Hamas Violence?
    by Alan Dershowitz, 2018 May 16
    www.algemeiner.com/2018/05/16/alan-dershowitz-why-does-the-media-keep-encouraging-hamas-violence/

    ReplyDelete
  2. This concerns boycotts and embargoes by state actors, not intergovernmental organizations. The threat to peace and security is actual, not theoretical.

    Yeah, BDS is deceptive. It was created solely to destroy Israel. That is a stronger message to convey about them, rather than trying to refute their bogus claims. It has nothing to do with international law, except its abuse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No reason that the arguments have to be mutually exclusive. We can say that BDS was created solely to destroy Israel AND that American law is on record stating that boycotts can be in the category of other than peaceful.

      Delete
    2. We can also say Marc Lamont Hill is no intellectual, despite his balls-to-the-wall shameless naming himself as one of our most important ones on his own website.
      What we can say is his recent performance at the UN was a minstrel show performed at the behest of, and for the pleasure of, some of the worst human rights abusers on earth. Mug for the dictators, Marc!
      He is bereft of history and law, and consequently has no moral authority concerning 'resistance'.
      Israel is the bulwark against antisemitism. Don't let left-wing jewish or other schmucks fool you about this. This should be obvious by the amount of denigration and hostility it receives from those parties dishing it out. (Just take a look at them.) Standing with a strong Israel is every Jew's best bet of fighting antisemitism and antisemites wherever they exist.
      Stand strong, stand proud, and stop apologizing.

      Delete
    3. American law is NOT what you say, however, but only regarding China (a state), if it used such tactics against Taiwan. Again, this refers to actions between states, not actions between states and non-states. Can BDS do an embargo?

      Theoretical arguments that stretch too far to make things fit seems an exercise in futility and does not further the cause of how to confront the reality of a situation.

      Delete
  3. Marc Lamont Hill is the epitome of ungrateful for civil rights help from us. Sickening!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Replies
    1. I know. I went out looking for flying pigs I was so surprised. A BLACK Lefty fired? My G-d, it's like we are in a parallel universe where good sense made a comeback.

      Delete
  5. Just-in-case you forgot that the news-media
    considers themselves to be loyal allies of Muslims:

    www.jns.org/pbs-tv-special-whitewashes-irans-repression-of-jews-hatred-for-israel/

    ReplyDelete
  6. You can be full of kindness and love, but you cannot sleep next to a mad dog

    - Ashin Wirathu

    ReplyDelete
  7. So why isn't the world condemning France for the rubber bullets, tear gas & stun grenades? Oh yeah, it ain't Israel. Hypocrites.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Despite his "apologies," anyone with even a surface knowledge of I/P realizes Hill knew exactly what he was saying with the "river to the sea," comment, linked as it was to his support for violent "resistance." This is why so many Israel haters are defending him. They want the bar lowered on what is acceptable in criticism of Israel and they want to normalize what genocidal Palestinian terrorists say and do. Hill got away with it so often he was truly shocked when he got caught going too far. Poor baby.

    ReplyDelete